Shitty video about communism

Check out this shitty ass video about why "Communism will ALWAYS be violent"

Other urls found in this thread:

There is nothing wrong with violence.

Violent revolutions are needed, & there is nothing wrong with that.

Well, of course it will be. State is a concentrated and monopolized violence to safeguard the class hierarchy, after all.

To call for the overthrow of the existing order
May seem a terrible thing
But what exists is no order.
To seek refuge in violence
May seem evil.
But what is constantly at work is violence
And there is nothing special about it.
Communism is not the extreme outlier
That only in a small part can be realized,
and until it is not completely realized,
The situation is unbearable
Even for someone who is insensitive.
Communism is really the most minimal demand
What is nearest, reasonable, the middle term.
Whoever is opposed to it is not someone who thinks otherwise
It is someone who does not think or who thinks only about himself
It is an enemy of the human species who,
And, in particular,
Wanting the most extreme, realized even in the tiniest part,
Plunges all humankind into destruction.
- Brecht

Abolishing capitalism in order to establish socialism will always be violent because the ruling classes will never allow their power and capitol to be handed over to the people who they stepped on to get it because they understand that it would mean their doom.

That being said communism is a stateless classless society where all class antagonisms have been eliminated so there wont be violence save for the random psycho killer.

Also I didn't watch the video I wrote this while stealing time at work.

I can't watch it rn but going by the title that's right, communism is a revolutionary ideology

The video is so fucking simplistic but I hate that I can't formulate a refutation of it apart for his retarded apologia of capitalism
Can some comrade with good knowledge of Marx/marxism write a rebuttal of what he says?

he's talking about the violence of communist leaders like Stalin, not the revolution

liberals go to >>>/leftpol/

w-wait… did I say anything like that? Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

you say that there's a difference
there is none

like clockwork

There is a big difference though.
Yes, Stalin and officials in his government also locked up people who actually tried to bring back capitalism in a violent way, but locking up anyone who dissents or criticizes shouldn't be a part of "the revolution". In a perfect socialist society there needs to be space for free debate.
And neither are the suppression of free art, religion and culture something to be wished for or a necessary part of the revolution in any way.

like a retard

ok bud.


it's scared.jpg


WEBM so people don't have to watch in on Youtube.

come on stalin stache, repression in stalin's ussr is documented and we need to recognize it despite it being worlds apart from the slander of the black book of communism


What's your problem with it?

Be largely responsible for stopping world war II. Get called violent. We just can't win can we?

You don't think capitalists won't use freedom of religion to expand the cult of personality around Milton Freeman in a hypothetical workers state? You don't think they will build a religion around Milton Freeman saying he was the real son of God?

religion is a reactionary element, especially organized religion with foreign authorities like catholicism

get rid of that shit

You're retarded.

Kek, I saw this as an ad on one of Roo's videos.

That hypothetical possibility is literally your argument to forbid all people to be religious and to repress their traditions if they don't harm anyone?

Religious institutions are far from perfect, but in the end religion in itself has nothing to do with politics. It's a personal choice of people or something that they were born into because their whole social environment is religious. I'm an atheist too but some people feel they need religion in their life and there's no problem with that. Taking that away from them won't help to make them enthusiastic about the socialist government either, and will only drive them towards right-wing ideologies that typically exploit "protecting traditions" as a justification for all the awful shit they do. And honestly it's understandable if they do so because they will never see a state that takes their personal liberties away as a utopia.



The problem is religion is antithetical to science, sure religions glue on the results of science to their believes but religions by their very nature can't solve any of the questions they raise. For example religion use to say the gods lived on the tops of mountains, the scientific method would be to go there and find out, the religious response was to move god away from man's ability to study god i.e God use to be above the sky yet after we went into space they had to move god yet again.

This is the dumbest reason.

So many meme arguments there it is brilliant. Regardless, Red Baiting doesn't actually work anymore. Also apparently people have been seeing these before Unruhe Videos so that is kek.

not at all

Religious thinking is the reason you have people believing we didn't land on the moon because that would debunk the bible's claim that the Earth is flat with a dome on top.

TIL Trotsky and Bukharin were liberals.

Science's overall purpose is not to prove or disprove religion, and religious conflict with science does not need to become an overall legal issue unless it comes to violence. Enough education will do to iron things out, not a blanket ban on any and all religions as if they operate similarly. It's mindless.

It's lack of education.

Historically speaking, yes, religion is intertwined with politics. But if my grandma is a devote Catholic or my neighbour is a sunni muslim, that's not because of some kind of political statement. Which was my whole point. Individuals who choose to be religious don't make that choice typically for political reasons. Not everything is about the broad historical view.

I disagree. Not every religious person is a creationist, lots of them don't take religious statements in a literal way. Science and religions are separate domains. Do you think science can give the ultimate answer to everything any human needs in their life?
Besides, if someone absolutely wants to believe the earth is 5000 years old, yeah that's stupid but I don't see a reason to make it illegal either. It's not hate speech. Also this

You clearly don't talk to the right idiots, as parenti puts it. So many people will defend FAITH against reason since it's a core of their thought proccess. Especially if indoctrination on magical-religious thought has been omnipresent their whole life.

>>>/reddit/ and stay there

That's…why you educate your public population? Atheism isn't entirely reasonable or non faith based either, it comes from different reasons, and as the past 10 years have shown us, motivation behind atheism becoming trendy in the past has hardly been reason based and not politically based

I do not trust any pivot to atheism.

wtf I love tribalism with women being treated as chattel slaves now
Absolutely undialectical.

You think Atheism in the west will somehow protect women better.

Socialism will.

Religious stances should not be as important as edicaton, you can have a million atheists in the West defending the wrong type of socialism, being insanely liberal, and being reactionary

militantly preaching there's no god is cancerous faith-based new atheism, traditionally atheism is based on (non-meme) rational scepticism.

Scientific education is not possible on individuals if they're unwilling to put evidence and reason over their faith. Religion is only anti-scientific when investigation and research contradict the tenets of the first, and that's where the political aspect of religion is most evident.

yes this is clearly representative of all religious people and also can't exist in an atheist society
not an argument, there's always an individual factor

you're extremely narrow-minded. Religion is not supposed to be about discovering scientific truths. It's called faith for a reason.

That's why religion is reactionary, ty.

You'll have to explain that.

Hoxha unironically did nothing wrong, destroying religious buildings is the correct way to go.

As if Atheism isn't


I gave two arguments for freedom of religion in . You seem to have some trouble reading so let me repeat them for you, my fedora-tipping edgelord: repressing religion is
1) ethically bad because freedom of religion is a human right and doesn't harm anyone
2) pragmatically bad because repressing people's personal liberties will only make them hate the repressive government (and by extension socialism) and turn them towards fasco ideologies




is straight Nu-Metal 90's lyrics

trips of truth although I think Burzum.bmp would've been more accurate

new atheism is also a religion, just not an organized religion

It's both

where's the church of atheism and the clergy then, fagboy

defending repression of religion based on "muh reason and Enlightenment ideals" is the fucking pinnacle of neckbeardism
I bet he's a dude who quotes Richard Dawkins at every opportunity in real life

New atheism was/is fascist as fuck.

1) Moralism is bourgeois
2) There is nothing wrong with shitting on reactionaries
3) All enemies of socialism must be eliminated

You sound like you’re moralizing

bad memer

it truly is


t. brainlet

t. Psued

this is really the most ridiculous non-argument ever. So you don't want socialism because you think it's a system superior to capitalism? You don't think capitalism is morally rejectable? Are you not totally moralizing with everything you say like said? Do you even know the meaning of "morals"?
religion =/= reactionaries

i'm saving them up because I may need them later in the discussion

there's literally nothing wrong with enlightenment values

y'all motherfuckers need marx to be honest

some positions that enlightenment philosophers took were highly influential, but "muh rationality" is just bound to become a repressive and totalitarian principle. You should look into Adorno a bit.
also basically all enlightenment philosophers were religious

You have to go back.

Reply to all the points i've made in my previous replies instead of posting dumb memes. Saying that there's something wrong with exploitation in the first place, or that anything is wrong and should be changed at all, is a moral statement. You literally don't understand what morals are.
Religious people aren't religious just because they want to be "reactionary". I explained this earlier and am not going to repeat myself.

then you guys get mad when communists call your bunch liberals

You made no points. Ignoring that historically religious institutions, leaders and functionaries have opposed socialism and cheered for the old order, which makes them reactionaries by definition, is not an argument.

I made several points apart from that. Work on your reading comprehension. I'm being serious, it may not seem important now, but later when you go to college and look for a job you will actually have an advantage if you're good at reading.
As I said earlier, it's not about the historical or broader perspective, but the personal one. Most religious people aren't religious for political reasons.

Well I mean by definition, every single socialist state is totalitarian.


Totalitarian means "A state that is coordinated towards a single ideal". We (apart from the anarchists) all wish for a state to coordinate the economy, civil society and organisations that bridge the gap towards socialism. Ergo all socialism is totalitarian: now is it repressive, that is the question to ask.

let's remove the church but keep freedom of religion restricted, there's your dialectics nigger

oh wait their completely personal religion says israel must expand into greater israel and that there's a prosperity gospel to bring capitalism again? what a non-political development, we should allow them express their faith though it's not political at all.


jesus christ, you're just retarded if you think religion is limited to that. besides, this "greater israel" shit is zionism, it's not some general feature of the jewish faith. This is were you go back

Bruv this is literally what political science defines totalitarianism as. One could argue Kemal Ataturk's Turkey was totalitarian.

make an argument any time

what is religion then?

How many times do you want me to repeat myself, nigger? It's a personal faith that people may or may not link with politics and with all kinds of convictions about society. I can't believe you unironically think every religious person is even engaged in politics at all. Besides, freedom of religion is a basic individual right as is freedom of expression. You can't just suppress that if you want to form a state where the actual people are supposed to be the focus.

but that's not religion

Nice circular reasoning

you're equating personal values with religion

that's not religion

how is religion not something you personally believe in and value? Just because there's a bigger/organized group of people who believe the same thing and because you got it from them? Then "personal values" are not a thing at all because you always form them under influence of others

religion includes "shit you believe in", but it also includes class actors since it's a social organ

read lenin

It is more to do with religious propaganda, it is not just random Christians making these claims but religious propaganda making such claims not only about fake moon but demonic toys and other such crap. Freedom of religion means churches are free to produce propaganda that not only is counter to the worker's state but to scientific evidence.

there's literally nothing wrong with the scientific method


source: gulag archipelago

its difficult to overstate how dishonest this shit is
no reason to try and pick it apart point by point, its not a serious work worth engaging with in the first place

To be fair, the overall trend of secularization and rising atheism has coincided with an improvement of women’s rights all over the West. I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that the former socialist countries put so much emphasis on women’s rights and were also led by atheists.

didn't happen
so did Poland long before
the SU did so only after being rejected by every other european power, it was their last option
that pact was not just so they could "invade" finland, which also didn't happen
the greater-finland nationalist-chauvinistic fins shot first, it's hardly an invasion when you defend yourself


is this just straight up neo-Nazi tier denialism or are you operating under the impression that the victims of the purge weren't communists?

thank you for pointing us you've never read anything about the fact and are just spouting garbage out of a shit source like the black book.

and you're still denying to be an edgy larping liberal, boy?
you are retarded, go fuck off to the wonderland for the cognitive crippled >>>/leftpol/

there's literally nothing wrong with burning nuns alive

Nuns deserved it

These capitalist think tanks are pretty aggressive with advertising lately.


FTFY. Anticlerical sentiment is idealist spookery left over from the enlightenment is not materialist.

socialism is the logical conclusion of the enlightenment

How can they do this

Socialism is the negation of the enlightenment. History is akin to walking up a long flight of stairs to God and communism. Each step is built upon the other. No one thing "concludes" another. We simply build upon and supplant.

He makes a good point though.

Most academic sources put the numbers of the purge at around 600,000. Anti-communist sources ususually use hilariously inflated million billion trillion "estimates" and, like you, neglect to mention that the targets were communists.

And, yes, while it is possible to have a purge that isn't done with executions, this purge WAS done with executions. Are you guys operating under the impression that Bukharin just went on a long vacation?

The hypocrisy of capitalist supporters never ceases to baffle me

Glad to hear it.